Labor Issue Drives Firms From Port

May 11, 1986|By John Powers, Business Columnist

Some would use the word ``unconscionable`` to describe the vote by four Port Everglades Authority members to reject firms wanting to do business at the port by using non-union labor. Others might use ``unconstitutional`` since Florida is a right-to-work state.

Also inconsistent with the duty of port commissioners, as the four apparently interpret it, is the port`s state charter. The state charges the authority to operate the port for the benefit of the community; it doesn`t say anything about operating it to benefit the International Longshoremen`s Association.

Yet, to the cheers and delight of union stevedores who attended the meeting, and against the recommendation of the acting port director and advice of the port attorney, four commissioners voted not to allow the companies to operate, even though it would bring in about $4 million in revenues.

And if that doesn`t stagger you, please read on.

Seaboard Marine Ltd., refused entry at Port Everglades, is the second largest container company at the Port of Palm Beach. Seaboard Vice President Ken Coleman says the firm needs more space. Palm Beach officials are willing to build a facility. They don`t know what it would cost but would pay for it from a $10 million bond issue passed in December.

So you have the Palm Beach port willing to spend money to keep a customer, while Port Everglades flatly turns down the company.

The word ``incredulity`` doesn`t cross your mind? Please go on to the next story:

Macmillan Bloedel Building Materials is not a newcomer. It has been at Port Everglades 20 years.

Bill Cobb, manager of the lumber importing firm, says non-union stevedoring costs are lower at Cape Canaveral`s Port Canaveral for the lumber companies shipping there. Since Macmillan`s costs are higher at Port Everglades, the firm can`t be price competitive on two of its products, spruce and cedar.

He needs a concession from Port Everglades, just on those two products and not even involving the initial unloading by union stevedores. Macmillan has a contract with a union company at the port. It has no problem with the union. It just wants to use its own employees to move lumber around the yard once it is unloaded. The union agreed.

But port commissioners either didn`t understand or didn`t care. They voted against the request.

Cobb says after a study of the situation, he believes he can use an existing miscellaneous permit he has to move materials once unloaded without any action by port commissioners. If not, he will have to move shipments of the two products to Port Canaveral.

Port Everglades would lose the revenues, longshoremen would lose the jobs and the firm`s customers would have to find a new source or pay for trucking spruce and cedar from Port Canaveral.

By now your sensibilities should certainly be shocked. There`s more:

Coordinated Caribbean Transport Inc., Miami, has a contract with union longshoremen. But Port Everglades turned down CCT because it was ``rumored`` the firm would start using non-union labor when its contract expires.

A fourth firm turned down, West Indies Transport Co., also sails from the Port of Palm Beach.

There`s little wonder port commissioners are described as the ``bottom of the ballot.`` Or that studies are under way to determine alternatives to the current method of electing port commissioners.

By their votes, Walter Browne, Mike Marinelli, Alan Marks and Herb Myers acted unfairly and irresponsibly to deny businesses access to labor in a free market.

Most ports, like Palm Beach, now have a mix of union and non-union longshoring. Port Everglades is fighting a losing rear guard action, to the detriment of the port and its unions as the port prices itself out of the market.